One of our frequently banned users is making a variety of legal and financial accusations that I wanted to respond to early and firmly lest any of these things take root in any way shape or form as reflective of reality in any way.
1. First, the Wikimedia Foundation is currently in full compliance and more with all legal requirements for filings, etc. It is my intention that we remain so, and that indeed, we are proactive about doing whatever is necessary to go above and beyond what is required of us in terms of organizational transparency, etc.
I am always eager to hear suggestions for improvement in this regard.
2. Second, there are no plans of any kind to release a 'for-profit' version of the Wikipedia, for the separate benefit of me or Bomis or any other company that I own, control, work for, etc. We *will* be working to release Wikipedia on CD-ROM, in paper format, etc., but these will be projects *of the foundation*, carried out with perfect consistency with our nonprofit mission.
Such efforts will necessarily and properly involve the work of for-profit publishers, but of course any contracts entered into will be to the benefit of the Wikimedia Foundation.
3. There are no current plans for salaries for anyone. In the future, I do intend that as we grow, we will become a large organization patterned after the National Geographic Society, the International Red Cross, and so on. This will eventually necessitate employees, etc. But for now, any suggestion that I am personally trying to get money from Wikipedia is beyond ludicrous.
It is commonly thought that I'm a wealthy person, but I'm not really. I'm a very committed person who drives a 4 year old Hyundai and lives in an ordinary middle-class American home in an ordinary neighborhood, while spending far more in the last 5 years on my dream of a free encyclopedia than I have on my own salary, none of which, of course, is derived from Wikipedia in any way.
I do this because it matters to me. There are lots of ways to spend money in life, some frivolous, some meaningful. To me, doing something meaningful is the best reward.
4. As of June 1, 2004, I am resigning as CEO of Bomis, and my partner Tim Shell will take over that role. This is primarily to reflect the reality of the situation, which is that I spend virtually all my time on Wikipedia and non-Bomis work. But it is also in part to further emphasize and underscore the fact that the two are unrelated. Bomis's ongoing provision of free hosting for the Wikimedia Foundation as a gesture of appreciation of "giving back" to the free software community whose software has helped us to do so much is not going to change. But that ongoing gift is the only relationship between Bomis and Wikipedia, period.
5. One troll has suggested that the Wikimedia Foundation needs to disclose something about it's relationship to Bomis. This is a classic propaganda technique: to demand the disclosure of some shadowy secrets, with ominous overtones, when there is actually nothing to disclose. I am happy to answer any questions that anyone has about it, but there's not much to say.
While I was a futures and options trader, I founded Bomis partly as a sideline hobby. It was eventually successful enough for me to retire from trading and do it full time. The company rode through the dot-com boom with good times and bad, and has always prospered enough to provide me with a decent living.
I eventually became consumed with the passion to create a free and freely licensed encyclopedia, and started to spend money on it. In the early days, I thought of it as a possible business venture like RedHat. Nupedia was an expensive failure, Wikipedia was a big success.
But through that process, it became apparent that in order for Wikipedia to achieve it's full potential it needed to be owned by a non-profit organization. I promised then to give it all away to the non-profit organization, and I did. I did so fully and completely and with no regrets. My reward will be a Nobel Peace Prize, ha ha.
Why has Bomis funded Wikipedia? Because my partners in Bomis shared my vision and let me do it. Bomis had servers, technical employees, etc., and was the original owner of Nupedia/Wikipedia. The transition was natural and spontaneous, and that's where things are today.
6. I have said before that although there are no plans for it at the current time, and no need for it, it would please me greatly to have the Wikimedia Foundation grow into a large enough organization that it would be sensible for me to accept a salary for running it. If and when that time comes, of course my compensation will be decided according to the standard practices for charitable organizations, i.e. through a vote of the other members of the Board of Directors, and in accordance with the advice of an independent outside compensation agency.
----
In short, if anyone has *any* questions or concerns about legal or financial matters, I ask you to please write to me privately and express those concerns openly and honestly, so that I can resolve anything of this sort to everyone's satisfaction. If, after you've talked with me privately, you find that you have any remaining issues that you don't feel I've addressed, then by all means I encourage you to go public with your complaints.
That's my biggest problem, really, with what this troll is doing. He's issuing a lot of lies (anonymously of course) and insinuations, attempting to make a public stink, rather than honestly and simply raising the issues with me in an appropriate manner. I don't actually fear any actual legal action, because in order to file a legal action, he or she would have to reveal his or her true identity, which would then enable us to finally take legal action to permanently ban them from the website, as well as providing an opportunity for me to file a libel claim against him.
Anyhow, really, I wanted to say all this because I want you you all to know my keen interest in openness, transparency, fairness, etc. I want to do whatever I need to do to make sure that the Wikimedia Foundation is looked to as a shining example of how a nonprofit should be run, with tight attention paid to expenses, good stewardship of donor money, etc.
--Jimbo
The poll at [[Talk:New York, New York]] on whether or not to move the name of the city to [[New York City]] is over. The vote was 17 for and 15 against. Hardly a consensus. If I tried to use that vote percentage as justification for deleting anything from VfD, people would be after me to remove my sysop status as a violation of consensus. But [[User:Nohat]] has taken it upon himself to unilaterally move the page. I have moved it back twice now, and will do it one more time in the 24 hour period, if necessary. This is a direct violation of the naming convention for US cities and a violation of the meaning of consensus.
RickK
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
Rick wrote:
The poll at [[Talk:New York, New York]] on whether or not to move the name of the city to [[New York City]] is over. The vote was 17 for and 15 against. Hardly a consensus. If I tried to use that vote percentage as justification for deleting anything from VfD, people would be after me to remove my sysop status as a violation of consensus. But [[User:Nohat]] has taken it upon himself to unilaterally move the page. I have moved it back twice now, and will do it one more time in the 24 hour period, if necessary. This is a direct violation of the naming convention for US cities and a violation of the meaning of consensus.
RickK
Let's keep these kinds of content disputes off the mailing list and on the wiki, please.
-- David
Afraid of having your mendacity aired for everyone to see?
RickK
David Friedland david@nohat.net wrote: Rick wrote:
The poll at [[Talk:New York, New York]] on whether or not to move the name of the city to [[New York City]] is over. The vote was 17 for and 15 against. Hardly a consensus. If I tried to use that vote percentage as justification for deleting anything from VfD, people would be after me to remove my sysop status as a violation of consensus. But [[User:Nohat]] has taken it upon himself to unilaterally move the page. I have moved it back twice now, and will do it one more time in the 24 hour period, if necessary. This is a direct violation of the naming convention for US cities and a violation of the meaning of consensus.
RickK
Let's keep these kinds of content disputes off the mailing list and on the wiki, please.
-- David
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
Rick wrote:
a violation of the meaning of consensus.
Where there is no consensus, I don't see preferring the older version to be a good tie-breaker. Essentially, there is no decision on which name should be used, and which it happened to have been at first is somewhat arbitrary and irrelevant (lots of things are initially put at an inappropriate location). What this basically means is that we need more discussion, a better set of options, and another, better-advertised (perhaps on the village pump?), vote to produce a more clear decision. Until then the name is in limbo and there's no decision.
For what it's worth, I think [[New York City]] is the best option, as it's the one most people recognize it under. The official city name is [[City of New York]], and both that and [[City of New York, New York]] are rather awkward-looking, and neither is a name anyone actually uses. [[New York, New York]] and [[New York City]] are both unofficial city names with much wider usage, and of the two the latter has significantly more usage from what I can tell, especially internationally where appending state names to US cities isn't done quite as frequently as it is in the US.
-Mark
Rick wrote:
The poll at [[Talk:New York, New York]] on whether or not to move the name of the city to [[New York City]] is over. The vote was 17 for and 15 against. Hardly a consensus. If I tried to use that vote percentage as justification for deleting anything from VfD, people would be after me to remove my sysop status as a violation of consensus. But [[User:Nohat]] has taken it upon himself to unilaterally move the page. I have moved it back twice now, and will do it one more time in the 24 hour period, if necessary. This is a direct violation of the naming convention for US cities and a violation of the meaning of consensus.
Shouldn't this discussion be taking place on the relevant talk page rather than the mailing list?
Ec
What the h*ll is the "Spam protection filter"? I tried to list [[Doggystyle Records]] to [[Wikipedia:Cleanup]] and got shuttled off to [[Spam protection filter]], which says:
The page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to an external site.
You might want to check the following regular expression for patterns that are currently blocked:
/((http://(www.|)(emmss.com|paidsurveysforall.com|hukuki.net|webrank.cn|gerhard.paducktions.net|emmss.net|mongolie.mn))|DeleteMeShizhao|ChinapediaIsNotFree)/
Return to Main Page.
I tried to post this question on the Village Pump and got the same error. There is nothing in what I posted that matches the above expression, and is this filter going to prevent ALL external links?
RickK
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
Please see [[Talk:Doggystyle Records]].
RickK
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
I look at "my contributions" and I don't see anything that has been done since June 16. I went to Village Pump and I see that it's empty, because the Wik vandalbot has redirected it to a nonexistant page. But the history of the Village pump looks like this:
(cur) (last) [input] [input] 18:49, Jun 16, 2004 Fasiyiq m (cur) (last) [input] [input] 19:03, May 12, 2004 Hyacinth (# & SP) (cur) (last) [input] [input] 18:46, May 12, 2004 Niteowlneils (=Press release: Wikipedia wins 8th Annual Webby Award for Best Community=) The vandalbot's change was made on June 16, again the last date of my contributions, but according that this, there were no contributions to the Village pump between June 16 and May 12?
Again, what's going on?
RickK
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
Rick wrote on wikien-l:
What the heck is going on with Wikipedia?
The site is using a three-day old read-only back up at the moment. This is expected to last until at least 2am (UTC).
Please see OpenFacts for the latest updates on this. http://openfacts.berlios.de/index-en.phtml?title=Wikipedia_Status
According to Tim Starling, when the data transfer finishes, the developers will make sure suda is properly set up to be a master. Then the wiki will be restarted using that. A second copy of the entire data directory will be made on ariel. Then they will try to start ariel as a slave. After that, a third DB machine may be set up.
Angela
Rick wrote:
I look at "my contributions" and I don't see anything that has been done since June 16.
At the moment it's showing a read-only backup from June 16 while maintenance is going on, trying to set up a second (hopefully) more reliable database server.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
In the course of categorizing articles on pianists over the weekend, I came upon a large amount of highly POV material inserted across some thirty articles which appears to have been added by a user named Pgeffen in January. Worse, this material appears to a copyright violation; according to a message posted on his Talk page by user Mandel a month ago, it was lifted from the book "Classical Music" (ed. Alexander Morin) (alas, Mandel did not follow up on his copyvio warning). I have listed the relevant articles on the new [[Wikipedia:Help wanted]], which Danny created in response to a conversation on IRC we had about the situation. This affair IMO is a major lapse in quality control, and is symptomatic of our pursuit of quantity over quality. To use a phrase of Karl Marx from a different context, we are clearly in the phase of "primitive accumulation", with all its attendant ills.
V.
I WAS getting nothing but blank screens when I tried to access Wikipedia. The attempt to access the page would end and there would be no error messages or any indications that there was anything wrong, just a blank screen. I kept Refreshing until that finally stopped, and now I'm getting nothing but an attempt to access the page for minutes and minutes. I've now been almost ten minutes trying to get to a page with no success, no error message, nothing.
RickK
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
I had to give up trying to access Wikipedia last night because I was getting zero response and eventually received an error message saying that there were server problems. I'm getting the same message this morning. What's going on? Any idea on when it will be fixed?
RickK
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
Am I really the only one who can't get Wikipedia to work? I'm still getting server error messages.
RickK
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
Secretlondon has decided to make public accusations against Jimbo Wales. See http://www.livejournal.com/users/secretlondon/3206.html?view=8070#t8070
RickK
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
Rick wrote:
Secretlondon has decided to make public accusations against Jimbo Wales. See http://www.livejournal.com/users/secretlondon/3206.html?view=8070#t8070
I don't see much in the way of real accusations there. He dislikes Jimbo's political viewpoints, and dislikes the fact that Jimbo disagrees with his own viewpoints. There's nothing like "Jimbo banned me because he didn't like my viewpoints" or anything that would rise to the level of an accusation of wrongdoing.
Also, to throw in an accusation of my own, everything ever posted on livejournal is worthless. =]
-Mark
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 19:52:57 UTC, Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
Secretlondon has decided to make public accusations against Jimbo Wales. See http://www.livejournal.com/users/secretlondon/3206.html?view=8070#t8070
WTF? The final message (as of now; dated 2004-09-03 18:30) _almost_ sounds as if the first one were a forgery. A plant by people working against Wikipedia. But not quite; "anonymous" isn't quite the same as "spurious".
Just tell me, someone, WHAT DID SHE DO ? --W. T. Pooh
She claims Jimbo sent her an email criticising her "anti-US attitude", which caused her to choose to leave Wikipedia. She posted about it in her livejournal.
Now some users are using this to attempt to bring Jimbo's behavior up to the Arbitration Committee: see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Xed_vs....
but Secretlondon says she did not and does not intend this: "I don't care to be honest. I suspect this is the red faction bringing this up. If I wanted to bring t5his up on wikipedia I would have done so."
Since Secretlondon wishes that this not continue, I would respect her wishes.
-Morven
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 21:38:29 +0000 (UTC), Dan Drake dd@dandrake.com wrote:
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 19:52:57 UTC, Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
Secretlondon has decided to make public accusations against Jimbo Wales. See http://www.livejournal.com/users/secretlondon/3206.html?view=8070#t8070
WTF? The final message (as of now; dated 2004-09-03 18:30) _almost_ sounds as if the first one were a forgery. A plant by people working against Wikipedia. But not quite; "anonymous" isn't quite the same as "spurious".
Just tell me, someone, WHAT DID SHE DO ? --W. T. Pooh
-- Dan Drake dd@dandrake.com http://www.dandrake.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Rick wrote:
Secretlondon has decided to make public accusations against Jimbo Wales. See http://www.livejournal.com/users/secretlondon/3206.html?view=8070#t8070
Other than calling me a "United States rightist", which I am not, and claiming that I banned Danny, which I did not, I didn't find any of it to be "accusations".
I did send her a snippy one-sentence email many months ago (and many nice ones as well), and I did apologize for it at that time within hours of doing it.
I wrote:
I'm getting sick of your US bashing. Please stop it now.
I regretted it, and apologized. I apologized again today. I try to be nice to everyone, but sometimes I fail, and I'm very sorry about that.
--Jimbo
Jimmy- (cc to foundation-l)
I wrote:
I'm getting sick of your US bashing. Please stop it now.
I regretted it, and apologized. I apologized again today. I try to be nice to everyone, but sometimes I fail, and I'm very sorry about that.
I see two problems here:
1) People confuse your personal opinions with Wikipedia policy. Maybe a copy&paste disclaimer for your emails would help with that? "The opinions in this email are my own and do not reflect Wikimedia or Wikipedia project policy unless otherwise stated." Most email clients support multiple sigs for purposes like that.
2) People don't realize that Wikimedia is not just Jimbo Wales. Most of our external communications have been very Jimbo-centric so far, but that's partially because there was no elected Board of Trustees, for example. Is there a shared board email address already? Maybe something like board at wikimedia dot org could be used as a replacement for the ubiquitous jwales at bomis dot com. That would also help in combating the Bomis-related conspiracy theories.
A ticket system would offer quite a few advantages over a simple mailing list: 1) no duplicate effort, 2) no need for spamming your inbox, just do everything through a single web interface, 3) easily expand the team of "agents", with different categories and associated user rights. Essentially a Bugzilla for emails.
This system here looks interesting: http://otrs.org/ http://otrs.org/screenshot/
Regards,
Erik